Talk:Israel–North Korea relations

Neutrality
The only source referenced for the article is from "jewishvirtuallibrary.org". It seems to be very biased from that view. Jujutacular (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to be referenced anymore, so now it's just an unreferenced article. Dheppens (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Ucucha 13:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Israel – North Korea relations → North Korea and the Arab–Israeli conflict —
 * The information in this article has really got nothing to do with the bi-lateral relation as a topic, which is simply not notable despite the simplistic but all too common 'sources' arguments made in the Afd. Every single word of this article in its current form is about the topic of North Korea and the Arab–Israeli conflict, and therefore per any policy argument you care to name it makes more sense to be under that title, rather than just being hosted in just another of these random backwater trivia buckets that are these bi-lateral relations articles, that nobody ever reads, or is likely to think of as a potential place to go looking for this information. It was tagged with {rescue} for a week and nobody's lifted a finger to make this article say anything about the actual relation beyond partial factoids and titbits that would be better described with accompanying material and context relating to the other relations and participants in the whole Middle East conflict, such as Iran and Syria. We already have other articles like this, such as Russia and the Arab–Israeli conflict, so I'm not inventing a new content system here. Relisted.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 14:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC) MickMacNee (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose—it very clearly relates to their bilateral relations, as the vast majority of people commenting in the recent AfD seemed to agree. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  CANUKUS  ─╢ 20:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support—per nominator, I can't see you how you can argue that this article is about Israeli – North Korean bilateral relations when North Korea doesn't even recognise Israel's existance. North Korea's main impact on the Arab–Israeli conflict is clearly its political orientation towards the Islamic countries of the Middle East; this article should be re-written to reflect that.  City of Destruction  (The Celestial City)  01:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Slight Oppopse.This one could go either way, mainly because the article barely has three paragraphs, but I'm leaning towards keep, since it is about two countries and how they interact. While bi-lateral relations does imply there is formal recognition and diplomatic support, the broader Arab-Israeli conflict might be overly broad. The Russia article, for comparison, has lots of material that deals with peace processes and other elements, enough to justify a special name. Ocaasi (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Relisted. I'm relisting this, three people is not enough to decide anything, not move, stay or no consensus, and the closer is after questioning seemingly oblivious as to why closing this with insufficient input just to clear the backlog at RM was just an exercise in mindless bureaucracy. I'm happy with any decision, as long as there is enough input here to declare a decision. MickMacNee (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The article as it stands is not that good, but should keep the page name it's in. North Korea's supplies to Israels neighbours are an integral component of their relationship, and should thus be mentioned. Just because the article does not cover much else is not a reason to move it, it is how the two countries have interacted. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ????? What makes more sense? Pretending that N Korea supplying missiles to Iran and Syria constitutes a 'bi-lateral relation' between N Korea and Israel, or that that is a detail that would be better covered in an article titled North Korea and the Arab–Israeli conflict.? MickMacNee (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not constitute a bilateral relationship, and nowhere in the article does it say there is one. The detail is part of the relationship between North Korea and Israel. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've really got no idea what you are trying to say. MickMacNee (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * North Koreas involvement in the ArabIsraeli conflict is part of the relationship between Israel and North Korea. There is no reason to move it to North Korea and the Arab-Israeli conflict at the moment. I can see that being split off from a general israel-north korea relations page, but getting rid of the general relationship page doesn't seem to be the right thing to do. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be gotten rid of, it would become a redirect. If you think there is anything here that isn't middle east conflict material, please for the love of God, tell me what it is. Because from where I'm standing, any split of that content would simply leave a blank page here. The current contents is not 'part of' this supposed bi-lateral relation/non-relation, it is all of it. Seriously, what would this article actually contain if you split it now? And the only way that is ever likely to change, is if ironically, Israel and N Korea did actually open up a bi-lateral relation, and there was actually something else notable to put in here that wouldn't then be about N Korea's role in the conflict. That's not going to happen any time soon, so this article will like all the other non-notable bi-laterals have proven to be, remain a pointless untouched and unread dead-end page, wrongly hiding sources and material that could and would be better organised under the more appropriate, logical and accurate title. I bet no editor who routinely edits Arab-Israeli conflict even has the slightest idea that this material is marooned here. MickMacNee (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course anything to do with israeli relations will have something about the arab-israeli conflict! It involves Israel! And you'll be able to relate everything said on it to the conflict in some way or another, as you did with the axisofevil statement below. Sentences like "The DPRK has, since 1986, prohibited Israeli citizens from entering North Korea. Israel has called for world action against North Korea's alleged nuclear weapons programme." do not directly relate to the arabisraeli conflict. They extend further. The arabisraeli conflict is inexplicably linked with the foreign relations of Israel, so it will be on Israel and X country relations pages. That does not mean we should move them. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is frankly absurd. That is like adding a couple of similar lines to the Falklands War article, and then saying that constitutes an 'Argentina-UK' relation article because it 'extends' the topic. It's nonsense. Infact, Argentina – United Kingdom relations is a bloody good exmaple of how this back to front way of looking at content organisation just produces pointless sub-standard x-y articles which people think could be expanded, but nobody ever does or will, because in practical and logical terms, they are and always will be wholly redundant to the articles they supposedly 'extend', that actually organise the info better, and people want to read and want to write. But at least with that relation, we do actually know in theory that it could be expanded to be a decent over-arching summary work. But with this one, there is no such hope based on the actual evidence in the sources, and if just working on current material, the summary would be impossible to write in any meaningful way, if the actual substantial topic was to be split. I am mortified that you think I have just 'somehow or other' linked the Axis of Evil statement to the topic of North Korea and the Arab-Israeli conflict, it could not be more clearer from the actual source that that is 100% inseperable, infact it is almost deceptive to claim it is anything other, which is what this article currently cons readers into thinking. MickMacNee (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Falklands War article is long and well done. It does however constitute a major part of Argentina-UK relations, so it should be on that article in a more prominent way. I may have to work on that, thank you. I don't understand your argument. Are you saying bilateral relations pages shouldn't exist? Per wikipedia policy, pages should always be moved to the broader topic if they are too short otherwise. I don't understand all your talk of extending articles and creating an overarching summary, sorry. Are you talking about this page? Or its renamed title? Anyway, I did not mean you have just randomly related the two, I'm saying that most bilateral relations to do with Israel will be affected by the ArabIsraeli war, as it is Israels most prominent and important foreign policy issue. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per User:TreasuryTag and also because of Avigdor Lieberman's statement that North Korea is part of an Axis of Evil which does not have a direct connection to the Arab-Israeli conflict.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is just getting bizarre. I know people didn't bother to read the article and the sources during the Afd (one keeper even referred to that statement as having come from the Prime Minister, not the Foreign Minister, that's how slack it was), and now it is happening all over again. How anyone can possibly say that that Axis of Evil statement does not relate to North Korea and the Arab–Israeli conflict is beyond me, given what the source for that very statement says in its very first paragraph: "TOKYO — Israel's foreign minister on Wednesday declared North Korea, Syria and Iran the new "axis of evil," claiming that North Korean weapons seized in Bangkok in December were bound for Middle Eastern militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah. MickMacNee (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)"


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Anti-semitic?
This is at the end of a paragraph on nuclear programs:

"Also the state ideology of North Korea called Juche is heavily anti-Semitic and teaches that Jews will be exterminated soon."

Besides the poor structuring of the sentence and its awkward placement in the article, I couldn't find anything to back this up - and don't really have access to the source cited. Can anyone else confirm that this is the case? If it is, perhaps we could add more informarion and reword this bit. Thanks! 205.155.229.107 (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * is anyone surprised at all to find this disinfo on wikipedia?? --91.60.151.90 (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

the pic
you markt plastin insted israel--E.F Edits (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Was the DPRK on the verge of recognizing Israel in 1993?
In this video, Noam Chomsky said that the DPRK had been on the verge of recognizing Israel (and being recognized in turn) for promising not to support Arab nations. This was supposedly blocked by the USA. Is this true? Because IMO, it would be a great addition to the article if properly sourced.--Adûnâi (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC) Edit. Actually, it is mentioned in the article, my mistake. But without these particular details.--Adûnâi (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The "Mossad and Ministry of Foreign Affairs meeting" section
The "Mossad and Ministry of Foreign Affairs meeting" section needs work. It seems to be only based on a single source, which I don't have access to so I can't verify the content, but Jimmy Carter was president of the United States more than a decade before the events described in this section, so I don't know why he is mentioned. In addition, this section could be merged with the rest of the article; there are now two sentences about the 1993 negotiations under the "History" section. JECE (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)